William Sanford LaSor

BIBLICAL AND NEAR

EASTERN STUDIES

Essays in Honor of

William Sanford LaSor

edited by

Gary A. Tuttle

l�7S

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company Grand Rapids, Michigan

\) ,.--

17

FROM IJARRAN TO IMAR ALONG THE OLD

BABYLONIAN ITINERARY:

THE EVIDENCE FROM THE ARCHIVES ROY ALES

DE MARl

BARRY J. BEITZEL

I. INTRODUCTI ON

Modem demographic and toponymic research encounters considerable difficul­ties when attempting to localize the peoples, countries, districts and towns cited in ancient Near Eastern literature. Vast reconstruction is severely thwarted, on the one hand, because modem cartographical efforts differ markedly from one

· another and, on the other hand, because geographical images are largely unclear from this literature, owing to the shortcomings and comparative paucity of an­cient maps. 1 One has also to consider that the circumferences of a particular town or district were not the same at all times, and that the same stretch of geography frequently carried disparate names in different periods of time. 2

Nevertheless, with some entail of those dangers implicit in every step, this writer submits that there are three potential bases upon which an ancient place_ name may be identified with relative certainty. First, there are towns whose names have remained static since antiquity. Here one could mention Aleppo, Tadmor, Hamath and Beirut . 3 In such cases, where the attribution conforms to grammatical structure and known vocabulary and the meaning is prima facie suitable as the designation of the place, the problem of identification does not have to arise. 4

Regrettably, most place-names are not of this variety. 5 Now, one has two possible means of identification at his disposal. The more direct and conclusive method is to identify a place-name through an inscription unearthed from a site, though instructive caution has been expressed by Astour: "Only if one and the same place name recurs in letters addressed to local rulers, in administrative records, in royal seals impressed upon legal documents--only then can one be sure that this was the name of the site. "6 Examples such as Mari = Tell I:Iariri, Kabat = Tell Barri, Sam'al = Zin<;irli, Ugarit = Ras esh-Shamra and Qarna =

Mishrifeh illustrate this method . 7 A third method consists in the assemblage and critical appraisal of texts

209

2 1 0 BA RRY J . BEIT ZEL

relating to neighboring place-names already identified and then in the comparison of these with the landmarks of the terrain. One must guarantee that the subliminal considerations of correspondence (insuring that the extent and character of a site fill the equation requirements) and synchronization (insuring that the remains on a site date from a period required by the proposed equation) are fully met.

Inherent in the employment of this latter method is the thesis that there is a primacy of geographic data contained in certain categories of original sources. To the degree that caravan itineraries and, to a lesser extent, military campaigns are plainly annalistic, this genre of text should be given the highest geographic priority. 8

Assyriological and biblical scholars interested in the Old Babylonian period in general and in the Mari age in particular unanimously concur that the itinerary texts fundamental to the historical geography of the Upper Mesopotamian valley have been published by Albrecht Goetze9 and W. W. Hallo.10 The itinerary's importance and chronology are established beyond cavil, 11 and Old Babylonian scholarship is especially indebted to these men for their comprehensive and stellar treatments of the itinerary. Both tablets describe the station by station march of an army between Larsa and Imar, 12 Hallo's text recording the outbound (northwest) journey and Goetze's text recording the inbound (southeast) march.

However, texts from Mari largely published subsequent to Hallo's tablet in 1 964 call into question the localization of what this essay will designate as the "northwest sector" of the itinerary texts. Diagrammatically set forth are the stations along the northwest sector according to the itinerary texts:

Ballo's text Goetze's text URU.�A.KASKAL Apqum sa Baliba Sablala Zalpab Serki Tultul Abattum BA.Aij.RA Imar

ljarranum Apqum sa Baliba

Zalpab Abuna Tultul Abattum

[text broken]

While differing only in slight details, both Hallo and Goetze chart the route of the northwest sector from Apqum and the Balib River westward to the Eu­phrates River and then downstream (southward) to Imar. On the contrary, this essay seeks to establish that the topographic evidence from the Mari archives singularly and unequivocally requires that the northwest sector extended from l::Iarran southward paralleling the Balib,River to the Balib-Euphrates confluence and then upstream (westward) to Imar (see below, Figure A).

II. ijARRAN AND APQUM

lfarranum ( = ljarran) is the Akkadianized semantic equivalent of the Sumerian KASKAL (cf. morphology of Hallo's text), meaning 'a caravan, a roadway. na

FROM tfARRAN TO IMAR 2 1 1

ljarran corresponds to the modem ljaran, a site immediately to the north of and between the Jullab-Daisan confluence/4 and some ten miles south of Sultan­tepe.15 ljarran was one of the major centers for the cult of the moon god Sin in the Old Babylonian period, 16 and it was the city from which the patriarch Ab­raham emigrated. 17

By common consensus, 18 the first stop along the itinerary downstream of ijarran-Apqum sa Bali\)a-is to be located near the headwaters of the Balib at 'Ain al- 'Arus ( = "the well of the betrothed"), some fourteen miles south­southwest of modem ljaran, at the place traditionally associated with the meeting of Eliezer and Rebecca, and later with the meeting of Jacob and Rachel.19

III. SAIJLALA AND ZALPAIJ

While no conclusive evidence has yet emerged to support the claim that the Balib River was employed for navigation in the Old Babylonian period, Mallowan20 points out the existence of an ancient road immediately to the east of and running parallel to the Balib. Along that road lay a number of sites, two of which are important in this context: ( 1) Tell Sahlan (c. 12. 5 miles south of 'Ain al-'Arus, just west of the Balib, and along the west bank of Nahr al-Turkman, this massive mound was occupied from the second millennium),21 and (2) Tell Aswad (c. 200

feet upstream of Tell Sahlan and on the opposite bank of the Balib, this high mound was occupied from neolithic times). 22 Since the station after Apqum in Hallo's text is Sablala, Tell Sahlan, on linguistic, chronologie and geographic grounds, becomes a likely candidate as its modem analogue, as Hallo23 is quick to point out.

ZaiJ?ab might have been localized at a point equidistant from Apqum and Tuttul since it was a two-day journey from each of them according to the Hallo text. However, since Sablala was one day's journey from Apqum according to Hallo's text, whereas Zalpab was one day's march from Apqum according to Goetze's text, Sablala and Zalpab must have lain close to one another, possibly"

representing alternate stops along the route. Such a conclusion is not at all obviated by the fact that both stops are listed in Hallo's text. By anyone's interpretation, this is a detour leg in the trip and may be likened to the Shuna­Har!;>i-Shubat-Enlil zigzag also attested in the itinerary. 24 Accordingly, while a Tell Aswad equation would not be crucial to the overall argument and is not advanced here unequivocally, it would fit the itinerary description of Zalpab and is not at all contradicted on chronological or archaeological grounds.

Furthermore, it is abundantly clear from a Mari text that Zalpab was located on the Balib and upstream from Tuttul, and not southwest of ljarran, as Hallo supposes.25 Naram sa 2 awilutiMES i-sa-ap-p [a]-ru-si is-t [u] me-e na'Ba-l [i]-iv

ul-la-nu-um-ma sa-ak-ru ba-lum me-e Tu-ut-tu-ul K! mi-nam i-ip-pe-eS u be-U i-de Za-al-pa-abK1 is-tu pa-na w [a]-ar-ki T [u ]-ut-tu-ulK1-ma i-la-ak i-na-an-na Za-al­

pa- [alb !Kll am-mi-nim u-da-ab-ba-bu-su be-lf dan-na-tim a-na dJSkur-Lu-til li­is-pu-ur-ma (''[How can] two men control a river? Previously they cut off the waters of the Bali\), [leaving] Tuttul without water which [it] needs. My lord

2 1 2 BARRY J. BE ITZEL

knows that in the past Zalpab has gone to [i . e . , depends on] Tuttul . Now why does Zalpab dispute with him [i .e . , Tuttul}? May my lord write sternly to Ishkur-Lutil").26 Tell Aswad, of course, is altogether compatible with these textual demands.

IV. AtJ:UNA A ND SERKI

According to the Goetze itinerary, the Mattiwaza treaty (KBo 1.1. rev .I 0) and the Annals of Ashuma�irpal (Ill. 71), Abuna is to be localized between Tuttul and Zalpa!J. Such a localization is generally corroborated by a Mari letter .27 In this letter, citizens from Abuna and Zalpab made accusations against a I.:Iardanum and his herd. Since I.:Iardanum's herd was grazing in the Tuttul district, and since the ten accusers came from the towns of Abuna and Zalpa!J, it is reasonable t� conclude that Abuna lay close to both Zalpab and Tuttul.

Of far more significance, however, is the fact that whereas Abuna was the lone station between Zalpab and Tuttul on the inbound route, Serki was the only stop between Zalpab and Tuttul on the outbound trip. As in the case of Sablala and Zalpab. this indicates that Abuna and Serki represent alternate stations along the route and must be sought in the same geographic proximity. And here the Mari archives provide irrefutable evidence. narBa-li-ib a-na Tu-u[t-tu-u!K1] gu­um-me-ra-ma er-sa-am ma-[da-am-ma] li-ri-su i-na $e-er-daK1 eq[lum i-i.r] u ru-uq se-um sa i-na-an-na as-[ra-nu-um] i-ba-as-su-u ma-an-nu-um i­le-eq-[qe-su] a-na pu-ub Se-er-daK! ugaram-ma sa T[u]-ut-tu-u!KI li-ri-su an-ni­tam be-li u-wa-er-su-nu-ti i-na-an-na er-su-um ma-du-um-ma i-na Tu-ut-tu-u!KI e-ri-is u Anum-U-ri a-na,Za-al-p[a-a]bKI [i]l-l[i]-kam-ma me-e sa narBa-li-ib [u-s ]ti-ki-ir u ikkarirt sa as-ra-nu-um [u]-se-si-bu u-ka-as-si-id ("Bring the water of the Balib to Tuttul and let them raise an abundant crop. The field at Serda is small and remote. Who would [want to] take the grain which is now there? As a substitute for Serda, let them raise [a crop] in the field at Tuttul. This is how my lord had ordered them. Now there is an abundant crop at Tuttul, but Anum-Uri has gone to Zalpab and has cut off the water of the Balib and has chased away the plowmen who were living there") .28

As Dossin29 has already affirmed, both the photograph and the facsimile copy of Rallo's texra0 reveal that the station between Zalpab and Tuttul in his itinerary text should be read $e-er-di, and not $e-er-ki. Not only does the Mari text tend to confirm this improved reading Serdi, but also it clearly locates all three sites-Zalpab, Serdi, Tuttul-along the waters of the Bali b. a point fatal to the contentions of Rallo and Goetze. 31

Approximately equidistant between Tell Aswad-Tell Sablan and Telf al­Biya' (c . 24 miles downstream of Tell Aswad-Tell Sahlan and c. 23 miles upstream from Tell al-Biya')32 and adjacent to the east bank of the Balib are the comparatively insignificant sites of I.:Inez and Tell Damir. This writer would postulate that the Abuna and Serdi of the itinerary and the Mari archives are to be sought in this general section of the Balib valley. 33

V. TUTT UL

FROM l:IARRAN TO IMAR 2 1 3

Beside the transtigridian homonym cited by Gelb,34 the Mari archives know of two cities which bear this namesake. One was located along the west bank of the Euphrates, some 165 miles downstream from Mari. 35

However, germane to the itinerary discussion is the localization of the northern Tuttul . Goerze36 and Hallo37 have sought to equate northern Tuttul with Tell Al)mar (Til Barsib), twelve airline miles south of Carchemish and along the Euphrates. On the other hand, the Mari texts place Tuttul near Zibnatum,38 Shubat-Shamash,39 downstream from Zalpab,40' between Samanum and Abat­tum, 41 and probably near to Zalmaqum. 42 The inference of one Mari text is that Tuttul was nearer to Mari than Shubat-Shamash was to Mari. Only when

1 Harran 2 cAin al-'Arus 3 Tell .1\swad 4 Tell Sablan 5 tlnez

Figure A

Mrs . Diana Ridenour, cartographer

6 Tuttul 7 Abattum 8 !mar 9 Tell Atnnar

10 Carchemish

l'o

�-

2 1 4 BARRY J . BEIT ZEL

Iasmab-Addu had consolidated Mari and Tuttul was he in a position to ask his father for jurisdiction of Shubat-Shamash. And based on the evidence from Marl, there is absolutely no possibility that Shubat-Shamash was located to the north or northwest of Tell Al.lmar. As-su-ur-ri Su-ba-at-dSamasK1 te-er-ri-is-ma u sarrum ki-a-am i-qa-ab-bi [u]m-ma-mi is-de Ma-riK1 [u] Tu-ut-tu-u[KI [u-u]l ir-k[u-u]s­[ma u Su-ba-at-dSam]as i-ir-ri-[i]s a-[n]a Ia qa-b[i-e-em] i-sa-ak-ka-an-ka is-tu is-de [Ma-riKI] u Tu-ut-tu-u[KI t[u-ki-i]n-nu w[a-ar ]-ka-nu-um Su-[ba ]-at- dSa­masK]I it-ti sarrim e-ri-(i)s-ma i-na bi-du-ti-SU i-na-ad-d(i-n)a-kum ("If you [i.e., Iasmab-Addu] request Shubat-Shamash, then the king [i.e., Shamshi­Addu] will speak as follows: he has not [yet] made firm the foundations of Marl and Tuttul, yet he asks for Shubat-Shamash ! He will charge you to not speak [of it again]. After you have consolidated the foundations of Mari and Tuttul, ask the king for Shubat-Shamash and he will give it to you joyfully"). 43

While Hallo,44 on linguistic grounds, rejected the Tultul = :ruttul equation, Goetze45 admitted that it would be impossible to deny such an equation (cf. KAV 1 83.23, [Tu]-ul-tu-u[KI = aiJ-i[t]/1-tu ["Tuttul = Hit"]). On the other hand, Hallo, 46 unlike Goetze, asserted that the Tutul of the Iabdun-Lim inscription had to be localized near the mouth of the Balib (cf. 1.34; 11. 1 36 for TutuVTuttul). In 1 974, Dossin47 published what has become the most significant text relating to Tuttul's localization, at once destroying the Tuttul = Tell Al}mar equation pro­posed by Hallo and Goetze. Lanasum, the governor of Tuttul, reports as follows: AwifuMES Up-ra-pi-i-iuKI a-na awifeMES Tu-ut-tu-fi-iKI if-<li>-ku-nim as-sum wa-as-su-ur me-e sa Ba-li-ib <tup?>-pi-su- nu id-di-nu u ki-a-am iq-bu-u­[nim?] um-ma-a-mi su-nu-ma is-[t]u-ma Zi-im-ri-Li-im [m]e-e u-ul u­wa-a[s]-sa-ra-ku-nu-si-im �e4-e-em-ku-nu gu-um-me-ra-ne-si-im-ma u me-e sa Ba-li-ib i nu-ga-am-me-ra-ak-ku-nu-si-im an-ni-tam Up-ra-pi-i-iuK[I i]q-bu-u u as-sum an-ni-tim-ma [awil]uMES Tu-ut-[t]u-[l]i-iuK1 tup-pi-su-nu [i]s-su-u u �e4-e-em-su-nu is-n[e-u] C:'The Uprapean citizens have come to the people of Tuttul. Concerning the distribution of the water of the Balib, they have given their agreement [lit. tablet] and they have spoken as follows: since Zimri-Lim does not wish to release water to you, give us your full agreement [lit. complete your news] and we will completely release the water of the Balib for you. This is what the Uprapeans have said. On account of this, the people of Tuttul have given up their [former] agreement and have made another agreement").48 Since Tuttul had already been shown to be on the Euphrates, 49 this new evidence meant that Tuttul had to be located at the Balib-Euphrates confluence. In describing his on-the-site examination, Dossin stated as follows:

Lors du premier jour de la reconnaissance que nous fimes aux tells des environs de Raqqa, notre attention fut attiree par un groupe de collines, situees a trois ou quatre kilometres a peine au nord-est de Ia Raqqa actuelle. Du sommet de Ia plus centrale et de Ia plus elevee d'entre elles, nous fumes frappes de Ia presence des vestiges d'une enceinte, qui attestait du coup !'importance de Ia ville ancienne que recouvraient ses ruines.50

FROM fjARRAN TO IMAR 2 1 5

Again, the intervening three days' journey between ljarran and Tuttul and the eighty or so airline miles separating the two cities are mutually sustaining and corroborating facts. The Mari textual evidence requires that the northern Tuttul = Tell al-Biya', a mound located at the Balib-Euphrates confluence just to the northeast of modern Raqqa.

VI. ABATTUM AND IM AR

The Mari archives make it clear that Abattum was a village occupied by the Mar(u)-Iaminum subtribe known as the Rabbeans, who were seasonal mi­grants. 51 In his masterful study of the tribal groups attested at Mari, Luke demon­strated that the geographic distribution of the Mar(u)-laminum at Mari ranged along the Balib valley (from .ljarran to Tuttul), along the ljabur valley (from the Sagaratum and Qattunan districts), in the Jebel Bishri district, and in the Eu­phrates valley (from Ganibatum to Abattum).52 Now for Goetze and Hallo, such information would require that the Mar(u)-Iaminum migrated upstream along the Euphrates midway between Imar and Tell Al.lmar, or somewhere north of Tell .ljudan. Yet, everywhere in the Marl archives where a Rabbean subgroup is associated with a place name, that site, on other grounds, is located either in the Mari or Terqa districts. 53 No clear evidence exists from Mari to substantiate the claim that the Mar(u)-Iaminum were operative, even in a migratory sense, as far upstream as Imar, much less two days' travel north of the city.

On the other hand, predicated on the Tultul = Tuttul equation, Abattum would have lain upstream from Tuttul approximately equidistant from lmar, at or near the southern bank of the Euphrates, and in close proximity to a location on the river easily traversed. 54 Accordingly, based on this dual evidence, this writer would be inclined to look for Abattum in the neighborhood of the modem village of Tabqa.

Imar was the terminating point in the itinerary texts. Though Goetze55 ha<t_ sought Imar at Qara Membij, situated between Imar and Carchemish, Arnaud, one of the excavators of Tell Meskene, has deciphered the following phrase on a cuneiform tablet from the site: KI awllufSi-bu-ut alim E-mar KI ("The elders of the city of Imar"). 56 Such evidence certifies the equation lmar = Tell Meskene57 and fixes the terminal point of the itinerary.

VII. CoNCLUSION

Arrayed against the inherently improbable conclusions of Hallo and Goetze is the incontestable textual evidence from Mari. The central conclusions which emerge include three absolutely fixed points along the northwest sector of the itinerary-.ljarran, Tuttul, Imar; three points positively localized on the Balib River-Zalpab, Serda, Tuttul; and one location incontestably situated upstream from Tuttul: Zalpag. Any affirmation which proposes that the northwest sector of

2 1 6 BARRY J. BEITZEL

the Old Babylonian itinerary ran from Apqum and the Balib westward to the Euphrates and then downstream collides with and manifestly denies all of these propositions.

Following are the probable modem locations of the northwest sector of the itinerary proffered by this writer:

Station :ijarranum Apqum sa Baliba Sabia! a

Modern location :ijaran

Zalpab Serdi/ Abuna Tuttul Abattum BA.A:ij.RA Imar

'Ain al- 'Arus Tell Sablan Tell Aswad (?) :ijnez-Tell Damir region Tell al-Biya' Tabqa region

(?) Tell Meskene

NOTES

1. The abbreviations throughout this essay will conform to those employed i n this volume, with the following additions: AIPHOS Annuaire de l'lnstitut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et Slaves (Bruxelles ) Annates Les Annates Archeologiques de Syrie AnSt Anatolian Studies Arch Archaeology BARB Academie Royale de Belgique. Bulletin de Ia c/asse des lettres et, de sciences morales et

politiques KAV Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen /nhalts KBo Keilschri/ttexte aus Boghaz/ciji SH (siglum for the tablets from Tell Shemshara) UIOM (siglum for the tablets in the collection of th e University of Illinois at Urbana) YBC (s iglum for the tablets in the collection of the Yale Babylonian Collection, New Haven ) For a survey of modern works treatin g anc ient maps, the reader may consult W. W. Hal lo, "The Road to Emar ," JCS 18 (1964): 57--61. 2. See this writer 's "The Place-Names in the Mari Texts: An Onomastic and Topo.pymic Study" (Ph.D. diss., The Dropsie University , 1976): 1-4, where it is argued at length that the so-called unknown antiquity theory cannot be employed against the use of place-names in toponymic studies. 3. The complexi ties of orthography are profound when dealing w ith place-names , and homo geni zed forms must be employed. On the risks involved in using classical and/or medieval sources , see Hallo (N 1): 63 n. 3; cf. J. Mellaart, " Anatolian Trade with Europe and Anatolian Geography and Culture Provinces in the Late Bronze Age , " AnSt 18 (1968): 187. Refer also to M. Astour, "The Partition of the Confederacy of Mukis-Nu!)asse-Nii by Suppiluliuma: A Study in Political Geography of the Amarna Age , " Or 38 (1969): 398-405; G. Dossin , " Le Site de Ia ville Kabat, " Annates 11-12 (1961--62): 198. 4. E.g., Aleppo< Semitic hlb ' forest.' 5. Cf. above, n. 2. 6. M. C. Astour, "Tell Mardi!) and Ebla , " UF 3 (1971): 17. 7. Pilot studies on this subject include A. Reiner, "The location of Ansan, " RA 67 ( 1973): 57 --62; J. E. Reade, " Tell Taya (1972-73): Summary Report, " Iraq 35 (1973): 155--87; J. Renger, "miirat ilim: Exogamine bei den semitischen Nomaden des 2. Jahrtausends , " AfO 24 (1973): 103--07. 8. J. D. Muhly ("Copper and tin; the distribution of mineral resources and the nature of metals trade

FROM UARRAN TO IMAR 2 1 7

i n the Bronze Age ," Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 4 3 [1973]: 299) is correct in assuming that the Larsan itinerary is a detour route controverting Mari, therefore dating from a time when Mari and Larsa were hostile. While they disagree on specific details, the common underlying predication of Goetze , Hallo and Lewy is the approximate geographic accuracy of an itinerary. Itinerary texts also pertinent to Mari include J. Lewy , " Studies in the Historic Geography of the Ancient Near East," Or 21 (1952): 1-12, 265-92, 393-425; G. Dossin , "La route de l 'etain en Mesopotamie au temps de Zimri-Lim, " RA 64 (1970): 97-106; one should also consider ARMT 1.7, 21, 93; V .51; VI.23. For the Cappadocian itinerary routes, consult L. L. Orlin, Assyrian Colonies in Cappadocia (Paris: Moulton, 1970): 36ff.; K. R. Veenhof, Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology (Leiden: Brill , 1972): 240. For Tukulti-Ninurta II ' s itinerary, see S. Horn, "Zur Geographie Mesopotarniens , " ZA 34 (1922): 123-56. Sargon l's itinerary is treated in W. F. Al­bright, "A Babylonian Geographical Treatise on Sargon of Akkad's Empire ," JAOS 45 (1925): 193-245. For a second copy of the Naram-Sin itinerary recovered from Mari, refer to G. Dossin, "Les archi ves economiques du P alais de M ari," Syria 20 ( 1939): 99; J. Laess pe (The Shetnshiira Tablets; a preliminary report [Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1959]) refers to a text (SH 809) which lists an itinerary from Zaslim to J:laburatum. 9. A. Goetze, " An Old Babylonian Itinerary , " JCS 7 (1953): 51-72; " Remarks on the Old Babylo­nian Itinerary , " JCS 18 (1964): 114-19. 10. Hallo (N 1): 57--88. Other significant studies on the toponymy of Mari include M. Falkner, " Studien zur Geographie des alten Mesopotamien, " AfO 17 (1958): 1-37. This study was supersed­ed only in a chronological sense by F. M. Tocci, La Siria nell'eta di Mari (Rome: University of Rome, 1960). 1 1 . So Muhly (N 8): 299. 12. I am here employing Mari orthography. 13. W. F. Albright, "Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation, " BASOR 158 (1961): 47; T. L.'Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974): 20; cf. Paddan-Aram, " Aramaic road" (Gen 25:20, et al.). E. I. Gordon, "The Meaning of the Ideogram 4KASKAL.KUR= 'Underground Water-Course' and its Significance for Bronze Age Historical Geography , " JCS 21 (1967): 70-88. 14. For this equation, see W. W. Hallo , "Haran, Harran, " The Biblical World (ed. C. Pfeiffer; Grand Rapids , MI: Baker Book Hous e, 1966): 280-83. 15. Although A. Glock ("Warfare in Mari and Early Israel" [Ph.D. diss., The University of Michigan, 1968]: 265) equates l:larran with Sultantepe. ! 6. For the worship of Sin at J:larran, as seen in the ARM, refer to G. Dossin , "Benjaminites dans les textes de Mari" in Melanges syriens offerts a Monsieur Rene Dussaud (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1939): 986; ARMT XV .162. 17. Gen 11: 31, et al. 18. Goetze, " Itinerary" (N 9): 61; Hallo , "Road" (N 1): 77-78. 19. Gen 24:11; 29:10. 20. M. E. L. Mallowan, " Excavations in the Balib Valley, " Iraq 8 (1946): 112. 21. Mallowan (N 20): 126, 138-39. Tell Solola, approximately one hour north of 'Ain al-'Arus, has also been put forth as the modern �ablala. However, all references to Tell Solola and 'Ain Solola known to this writer emerge ultimately from the description of E. Sachau, Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien (Leipzig: Brockhaus , 1883): 228-29 and map. Here he records his journey from Urfa to Raqqa in 1879. As indicated by Hallo, L. Dillemann (La Haute Mesopotamie orientale et les pays adjacents [Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1962]: 168 n. 2) finds the geographic situation quite confused and seems to question the very existence of Tell Solola. 22. Mallowan (N 20): 126. 23. Hallo , " Road" (N 1): 7'iJ. 24. Hallo ( " Road" [N 1]: 78) points this out as an unintended detour. 25. Hallo , " Road" (N 1): 78. 26. Text publ ished by G. Dossin, "Le site Tuttul -sur -Balf. b, " RA 68 (1974): 28 (A.4 1 88.24-33). A Cappadocian itinerary text cites a Zalpa (along with a Mardamam, Ela!)ut, Abrum, Haga and D adan ia) as a s ta tion between Admum and the Eu ph rates ; c f. Veenhof (N 8): 243, 292 n. 423; and Orlin (N 8): 38. One should consult as well J.-R. Kupper, Les nomades en Mesopotamie au temps des rois de Mari (Paris: Societe d' Edition " Les Belles Lettres ," 1957): 51. 27. 1.118. For a translation of this passage see my dissertation, 288-89. 28. For the text see G. Dossin, " Tuttul" (N 26): 28 (A.4188.3-16); cf. CAD G, 30a; 1/J, 219b, 49b;

2 1 8 BARRY J. BEIT ZEL

K, 280b; AHW, 995b. One should point out that on p. 33 of this article, Dossin looks to Tell Zeidan as the modern analogue of Serda. 29. Doss in, " Tuttul" (N 26): 27. 30. Hallo , " Road" (N I): 58 , for photograph; 60, for the facsimile copy. For Hallo' s discussion of Serki ( = Seruj), refer to p. 78. 3 1 . However, the orthographic feature is not central to the argument. 32. It is most reasonable to assume that one day's travel encompassed c. 17 to 23 miles when traveling overland or upstream by boat and c. 20 to 26 miles when traveling downstream by boat; cf. Hallo , "Road" (N 1 ): 63, 66, 84; Lewy (N 8): 280; G. Dossin , " Le royaume de Qatna au �vme siecle avant notre ere d' apres les ' Archives de Mari , ' " BARB V/40 (1 954): 420; "lamtmd et Qatanum, " RA 36 (1 939): 52. This explains why, although Shubat-Enlil was closer in miles to Apqum than to Mari, it was a five (or three) day journey from Shubat-Enlil to Mari and six days from Shubat-Enlil to Apqum. On the one hand, the route was downstream water navigation and, on the other hand, it was a rugged mountainous route. The estimate of Goetze (" The Roads of Northern Cappadocia in Hittite Times , ' ' RHA 1 5 [1 957]: 99) of fifty miles per day on good roads and on good horses is unsubstantiated for the Mari epoch, and he elsewhere (" Itinerary" [N 9]: 58, 64, 67) proposes more reasonable figures. Obviously , different circumstances in travel (administrative, mili­tary, economic) would dictate the distance traveled in a day. 33. Cf. above, n. 28. 34. I. J. Gelb, " Studies in the Topography of Western Asia ," AJSL 55 (1 938): 75. 35. Obviously referred to in 1.20; IV.1 7. 36. Goetze, " Remarks" (N 9): 1 1 8- 1 9. 37. Hallo, " Road" (N 1 ): 8 1 . Though not actually making such an equation, S. Smith (" Yarim-Lim of Yam!J ad, " RSO 32 [ 1 957]: 1 58) remarks that the northern Tuttul should be sought just south of Carchemish, arguing against a Bali!) location because the river was not navigable. 38. 1.18.1 9-24, 34-42; for a translation of these passages, see my dissertation, 326-27. Cf. A. Marzal , " The Provincial Governor at Mari: His Title and Appointment, " JNES 30 ( 1 97 1 ): 209. 39. 1.11 8.1 0'-23'; cf. above, n. 27.

·

40. Cf. above, n. 26. 4 1 . G. Dossin, "L' inscription de fondation de la!Jdun-Lim, roi de Mari , " Syria 32 ( 1 955): 7-8 , 1 4 (col. III.3-21 ). For a translation of this passage see m y dissertation, 263-64. 42. Dossin, " Benjaminites" (N 1 6): 987 (11 . 8-1 2); for a translation of this passage see my dissertation, 307. Cf. the text published by A. Finet ("Les medecins au royaume de Mari , " AIPHOS 1 4 [ 1 954-57]: 1 28 [A. 675.5-1 1 ]), which describes an epidemic that struck Tuttul and Dunnum, the latter of which is downstream from Lasqum. In discussing the kurullum, Finet tentatively suggests that it refers to a malady whose symptoms perhaps correspond to the malady derived from a fruit tree; cf. III. 78.25. 43. IV.27.1 8-28; cf. CAD tl. 1 83ab, 1/J, 238a. Other texts associating Tuttul and Shubat-Shamash include 1.1 2, 60, 73, 1 1 8; V.5. 44. Hallo, "Road" (N 1 ): 79. 45. Goetze, "Remarks" (N 9): 1 1 8 n. 50. 46. Hallo, "Road" (N 1 ): 79. 47. Dossin, " Tuttul" (N 26): 25-34. 48. Dossin, " Tuttul" (N 26): 30 (A.2769.5-1 9). 49. E.g., 1.1 02; Il. 1 37; cf. ARMJ XV.137. 50. Dossin, " Tuttul" (N 26): 33. 5 1 . The Mar(u)-laminom subgroups are the Uprapum, Amnanum, labrurum and the Rabbum. The circumstantial evidence of 1.42.29-33 provides the possibility of including the lari!Jum. For the extensive argumentation supporting the Mar(u)-laminum orthography, vis-a-vis Benjaminite, the reader is referred to my dissertation, 227-29. See also 1.6; IV .6, 2 1 . It would be difficult to prove that the political clout of Zimri-Lim, much less of lasmab-Addu, extended as far as Tell Al)mar. The so-called equality text, first published by Dossin ("Les archives epistolaires du Palais de Mari , " Syria 1 9 [ 1 938]: 1 1 7), precludes the extension of the Mari domain a s far as Tell Al)mar. Glock ([N 1 5]: 62 n. 78) demonstrates that Zimri-Lim exercised a suzerainty over some twenty vassals. From the letters published by C.-F. Jean ("l::lammurapi d'apres des lettres inedites de Mari ," RA 35 [1 938]: \09), one observes that l::lammurapi addresses Zimri-Lim as "brother" (i.e., a salutation usually accorded an equal). 52. J. T. Luke, " Pastoralism and Politics in the Mari Period: A Re-examination of the Character and

FROM ljARRAN TO IMAR 2 19

Political Significance of the Major West Semitic Tribal Groups on the Middle Euphrates, ca. 1 828-

1 758 B.C." (Ph.D. diss., The University of Michigan, 1 965): 69-75. Though understood by numer­

ous authors to represent the expression ' ' sons of the right hand' ' ( = southerner), the phrase was taken

to represent various phenomena. Smith ([N 37]: 1 59) took it to mean ' ' men of the right bank of the

Euphrates" ; J. Muilenburg ('' The Birth of Benjamin, ' ' JBL 75 [1956]: 200) understood the expres­

sion as " south of Ephraim" ; cf. K.-D. Schunck (Benjamin: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Geschichte eines lsraelitischen Stammes [Berlin: Topelmann, 1 963]: 55-56), who affirmed that south

of Ephraim connoted dependence on the northern tribe. Thompson ([N 13]: 1 85) espoused the

position that the name had reference to ' ' south of the hill country.' ' 53. Cf. my dissertation, s .v . Rabbum, 254-55. 54. Cf. Dossin, " Benjaminites" (N 1 6): 985 (1 1 . 1 2'-1 5'); IV.6.2l. 55. A. Goetze, "Remarks" (N 9): 1 1 9. Hallo (" Road" [N 1 ]: 8 1 ) finds Tell Meskene to be compatible with the textual demands for lmar; cf. A. Goetze, " The Syrian Town of Emar," BASOR 1 47 (1 957): 22-26. 56. Dossin (" Tuttul" [N 28]: 26) provides this datum. 57. Tell Meskene is separated from Tell Al)rnar by some fifty-seven airline miles. However, the two

locations are separated by some eighty-five land miles, following the course of the Euphrates. See

now J. Margueron, " Quatre Campagnes de Fouilles a Emar (1 972-1 974): Un Bilan Provisoire , "

Syria 5 2 (1 975): 53-85.